Pages

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Why Indians think Religion and Science are the same?

In many discussions, it comes out clear that many educated Indians believe Religion and Science to be the same. According to them they are two sides of the same coin.They think that Science is not much different from Religion;Science and Religion are equally dogmatic;Adherents of Science and adherents of Religion both believe they are on the right path while continuing to believe the other party is on the wrong path.They believe that Science starts with the premise that it is right, not very different from basis of a Religion.These Indians find Science ‘dogmatic and unyielding’, resolute in promoting its belief systems, trying to convert people into its ‘faith’.Just like Religion.

And most Hindu Indians believe their religion is on par with Modern Science in explaining the workings of the Universe and sometimes is even better than Modern Science.While Modern Science fails to answer some of the metaphysical questions, Hinduism comes right in to dispel away all the doubts.

Many learned and senior Hindus talk about Hinduism as if it is a Science or as if it is a ‘meta-Science’.They say, ‘Well, not only does Hinduism include all the topics covered by your Modern Science, it also explains many things which your Modern Science does not’.

They talk about spirituality, they talk about cosmic energies, they talk about some chakras in our bodies, they talk about harmony with nature, balance between mind and body, and so on.And to aid them all, Hinduism provides tools like Astrology, Numerology, Vaastu Chastra, and Ayurveda.Many Indians continue to believe that these tools are actually tools of Modern Science. In case the West does not use it in its conventional practices, it’s only because they are dumb.Our ancestors were always wise. [Deepak Chopra, et al, is now educating the West of the superior Indian tools].

According to these well educated people, Science continues to fail in many respects.It is completely vague, not sure of itself, always shifting its stand on explaining various issues.For example, Science believed that Universe was static, and then it believed it was expanding, and then for a while it didn’t know whether it was contracting.Science didn’t know if the age of Universe was 8 billion years or 20 billion years and each new discovery keeps changing that date.Also, Scientists are never sure when Man came into existence – was it 200,000 years ago, or a 1.25 million years ago? According to them, the different dates that Science throws at them on creation of Universe, creation of life, creation of man, etc, are as ludicrous, ambiguous and inconsistent as the dates thrown at us by Religion.Why should one believe one over the other?

Also, Science does not explain so many miracles, which are integral part of this Universe.For example, a person got cured of Cancer when one Baba touched him with a stone.Can you explain that?A person fell from three storied building chanting name of Shree Ram and he was completely unhurt. Can you explain that?I read Hanuman Chalisa 80 times before I went to write my exam, and I got exactly 80 marks in that exam. Can you explain that?Sai baba brings objects into existence out of thin air, like an egg from his mouth, and fire in his hands, etc.Of course, magicians do all that, but that is magic. When Sai Baba does it, it is a miracle.How do I know that?Because, first, Sai Baba clearly says that it is not magic and that it is a miracle.And why would he lie?Second, everyone who saw the event clearly said it was not magic and that it was a miracle. Why would so many people lie?

The list goes on.

But there is a fundamental reason why most Indians think Religion and Science are the same and that there is not much difference between the two.And I think the answers lies in the way Science is taught in India.

Indians are taught their lessons not through discourse, not through investigation, not through empiricism, but as a dogma, where a set of beliefs are shoved down your throat, unquestioned, just like the way a religion is taught.Indians learn their subjects by rote, by heart, and then reproduce them verbatim in their exams - word to word.It is as important to reproduce their texts in Indian education as it is in Religion.

Just look at the way History is taught in India.It is always a collection of facts, dates, and names.Nobody knows why it is important to know that Battle of Panipat happened in 1526.There is no background, no premise, no context, and no analysis.Nobody discusses the events or writes about significance of those events.

Science is taught the same way.Nobody knows why F=ma.It is so, because Newton said so.Why do we have volcanoes?It is so because the textbook said so.Why do planets revolve around the sun? The teacher says, ‘Because I said so’.Not very different from how religions treat such curious questions, saying ‘Because Bible says so’.No discussion, no debate, no explanation, no reasoning, no construction of argument, Period.

Look at my Law of Indian Idiocy I (Knowledge depletes with each generation).The teachers berate the kids when they ask questions.They forbid the kids from asking questions. They shut their curiosities saying ‘I said so’.

A kid has to mug up Science and its formulae the way he mugs up Sanskrit Poems.He doesn’t understand either of them. Such mugging up activities are done to pass the exam, go to the next level, win the fist rank.A parent whose kid scores first rank is happy – he doesn’t care or bother to know if the kid really understands the subject.As far Indian education is concerned it is happy as long as the kid is a good Xerox copy machine with Terabytes of memory.They don’t need an intelligent and thinking machine.

Given such education for fifty years in this country, what you get is globetrotting, suit-wearing, English speaking, elite-educated Indians who have not imbibed the scientific or rational temperament but who can spew forth all the words and sentences useful to give one a successful job, career and lot of money.

Education in India is not to impart rational thinking or induce scientific temperament or to induce universal laws or inculcate a mature discussion capability.It is not to make law-abiding citizens or better humans.It is treated as a cumbersome but necessary exercise that one has to go through to earn more in life, get material goods, buy homes, get a good career, buy cars, travel world (nowadays), showoff and feel happy about.

No wonder Indians completely lack scientific temperament, even those who attend top colleges in the world, even those who do their PhD in Physics, even those who launch rockets into space, even those who do research in medicine.When they go back home, after finishing their ‘job’, which is done only to go the next level in social and economic hierarchy, they go back to their gods, their blind beliefs and their superstitions.They go back to the safe abode of secure irrationality where once again Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter become real.The Hanuman and the monkeys who build bridges become real.Where Shri Ram is not just real, but is hyper-real.Where Physics is not just enough, one needs meta-physics to explain things.That’s where Indians continue to find their Hinduism superior to Modern Science.

15 comments:

Sujai, while I agree with the general theme of the article, I disagree with a few specifics.

First of all, why do you assume only Hindus are superstitious and religious? I personally know two Muslim women who believe in Vaastu. One was my interior designer who wanted me to consult a Vaastu expert (despite me telling her repeatedly that I don't believe in that stuff), and the other is the head of a social organization who had switched the direction of her office desk for seemingly no reason, but who admitted that she did it for Vaastu reasons.

If anything, I think there is a greater proportion of self-proclaimed atheists among Hindu Indians than of any other community (even Christian Indians). So I think targeting Hindus here is a bit unfair.

The Nobel-prize winning astrophysicist Chandrasekhar was a self-proclaimed atheist. On the other hand, Abdus Salaam, the Pakistani Nobel prize winner prays regularly (Steve Weinberg, in his bestseller "Dreams of a Final Theory" brings this up.)

You would find that virtually every Muslim intellectual (in India or elsewhere, rocket scientist or otherwise) will always have the compulsion to pepper his conversation with Inshallah, because to even suggest a hint of agnosticism (let alone atheism) would invite accusations of betrayal of faith. If there are many rationalist societies in existence in India (with no threats made to its members), and none in Pakistan, please give Hindus some credit for allowing that!

My second issue is with your lumping Ayurveda along with astrology and numerology. Ayurveda is a valid methodology which cannot be said to be without scientific basis. Plants produce a lot of chemicals, and many allopathic drugs have been derived from studying plant chemicals. Examples are aspirin, quinine, reserpine, etc. Before the advent of modern drug synthesis methods, the only way to get these complex molecules was to tap the botanical resources directly. And ayurveda was based on empirical observations of plant extracts on different human ailments (which is loosely what one might call the scientific method of experimentation). So I wouldn't call it completely without merit. At any rate, it is definitely more scientific than homeopathy (of German origin) which, in my opinion, makes no sense.

The third point is with regards to how science is taught in schools. You say "Nobody knows why F=ma. It is so, because Newton said so. Why do we have volcanoes? It is so because the textbook said so."

Well, I don't think textbooks in the US or anywhere else in the world teach these any differently. To really understand why F=ma, one needs to understand Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formulations of classical mechanics, clearly beyond the scope of school children. At their age, they need to just imbibe certain facts, they can always question or analyze them later when they gain the required background.

The same thing, when you say, "It is always a collection of facts, dates, and names. Nobody knows why it is important to know that Battle of Panipat happened in 1526. There is no background, no premise, no context, and no analysis. Nobody discusses the events or writes about significance of those events."

Again, what you want them to be taught would make it a Masters level course in political science! At their age, it is enough to just know the unambiguous facts, and leave the subjective interpretations for later in life. And again there would be several viewpoints, so which one is to be taught in school would itself become highly controversial.

When I criticize Hindus, it does not mean I condone Muslims. When I criticize Indians, it does not mean I condone Pakistan.

When I criticize Indians for throwing garbage on the streets, it does not automatically mean that Bangladeshis don’t. In the same way, when I criticize Hindus for being superstitious it does not mean Christians do not follow those ways.

I don’t agree that there is a ‘greater proportion of self-proclaimed atheists’ amongst Hindus. I would want you to wait for an article that is going to be published soon by Meera Nanda on this. Meanwhile, you can go to Pew Foundation to get those surveys.

So I think targeting Hindus here is a bit unfair.

I classify this into the category of ‘peevish Indians’.

…please give Hindus some credit for allowing that!

Indians are on a accelerated path to roll back their rational and scientific temperament.

Ayurveda is a valid methodology which cannot be said to be witthout scientific basis. Plants produce a lot of chemicals, and many allopathic drugs have been derived from studying plant chemicals.

Just because plants produce chemicals does not make it a valid science. Alchemy involved playing with chemicals but is not valid science. Just because one plays with stars (as in astrology) it does not make valid science.

Again, criticizing Ayurveda does not mean I excuse homeopathy.

Well, I don't think textbooks in the US or anywhere else in the world teach these any differently.

I am talking about how it is taught, not how it is presented in texts. A debate, a discussion, a reasoning, a context is what is needed. And when I criticize India, it does not mean I excuse USA. For that matter, there are places in USA where creationism is considered science! That is even grim!

To really understand why F=ma, one needs to understand Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formulations of classical mechanics, clearly beyond the scope of school children.

Again, you have gone on a tangent.

I am not talking about Hamiltonian mathematics.

One could explain basic things of nature using ordinary science making it reasonable and deductive arguments may use some experiments or discuss certain observations. To discuss gravity, one doesn’t have to rediscover Integral Calculus, or to appreciate geometry, one doesn’t have study Riemann.

You got this on a completely wrong note here.

I know of my nieces and nephews in other countries who are able to interpret some of the basic laws of science in much better way than their counterparts in India. I know of them talking about Martin Luther King and his significance, Boston Tea Party and its significance, Nazi Holocaust and its significance, much better than their counterparts in India.

Sujai said - "I know of my nieces and nephews in other countries who are able to interpret some of the basic laws of science in much better way than their counterparts in India. I know of them talking about Martin Luther King and his significance, Boston Tea Party and its significance, Nazi Holocaust and its significance, much better than their counterparts in India."

My nephews and nieces in India can not only explain MLK and Boston Tea Party but also Panipat ki ladai. Ask your nephews and nieces in "other countries" about Panipat and Sonipat and you will see a battleground on their faces :)

In any population, you will find some people subscribing to astrology, feng shui and so on. Just because Linda Goodman's books are very popular in the US and virtually every US newspaper has a sun-sign column doesn't make the US a backward nation in terms of science and technology.

I have read Meera Nanda's article, but I got the feeling that she is blowing things out of proportion. The majority of scientists in India don't subscribe to Hindutva when it comes to scientific matters. There might be a few oddballs here and there, but the genuine ones know which ones to keep away from. Even in the US you would find a few scientists supporting Creationism or intelligent design. That doesn't mean US research is doomed. This is not to say that all Indian scientists are atheists, but at the same time they don't attempt to explain their subject in terms of their religion. They know very well to separate their professional lives from their personal beliefs. Unfortunately, the ones with a political agenda to mingle Hinduism with science are often the most vocal ones (with publicity provided by Hindutva groups), and because of the actions of these few bad apples, some like Ms Nanda cast the whole Indian scientific community in a negative light, with an alarmist view that Indian science is going to get hijacked by Hindutva pretty soon. I personally find this view laughable.

You say - "Indians are on a accelerated path to roll back their rational and scientific temperament. "

Please substantiate this. The last time I checked, we are on track to sending a spacecraft to the moon coming April.

And if what you say is true, the reason is because of the overwhelming attraction of bright minds towards the IT sector compared to pure sciences. It is not like the younger generation has suddenly decided to take up astrology en masse.

Regarding Ayurveda, you say "Just because plants produce chemicals does not make it a valid science. ".

Sorry, I disagree. Plants have been used for many remedies. To give an example, quoting from Wikipedia regarding aspirin, "The Greek physician Hippocrates wrote in the 5th century BC about a bitter powder extracted from willow bark that could ease aches and pains and reduce fevers. This remedy was also mentioned in texts from ancient Sumer, Lebanon, and Assyria. The Cherokee and other Native Americans used an infusion of the bark for fever and other medicinal purposes for centuries. The medicinal part of the plant is the inner bark and was used as a pain reliever for a variety of ailments."

Eventually the actual compound was isolated. But what modern science had done was build up on the well established fact that the bark could reduce fever and pain. Now how does that make it unscientific?

Just because our ancestors didn't know the chemical formula doesn't make it unscientific. If the medicinal properties of a plant can be established in terms of modern science, then it is scientific. This is in stark contrast with astrology where there is no argument based on modern science that would validate it.

Coming to F=ma, if you want to explain it in terms of common observation, I don't think it is differently taught in India as opposed to elsewhere. Regarding gravitation, virtually all school texts start with the story of how an apple fell in front of Newton.

"I know of them talking about Martin Luther King and his significance, Boston Tea Party and its significance, Nazi Holocaust and its significance, much better than their counterparts in India."

I would expect American kids to know about ML King or the Boston Tea Party than Indians. How many American kids would know anything about the battle of Panipat or the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre?

I vividly remember reading about the Holocaust in my 10th std history lessons, and it did have an impact on me. Can you please check out the CBSE textbooks before arriving at these conclusions?

Just because Linda Goodman's books are very popular in the US and virtually every US newspaper has a sun-sign column doesn't make the US a backward nation in terms of science and technology.

Agreed.

The majority of scientists in India don't subscribe to Hindutva when it comes to scientific matters.

We do not contend that scientists in India subscribe to Hindutva ideology. You did not get the message.

What we say is that scientists in India subscribe to the same set of beliefs that feeds, fuels and bolsters the Hindutva ideology reducing its countering faction to mere political forces.

You say - "Indians are on a accelerated path to roll back their rational and scientific temperament. "

Please substantiate this.

This whole blog is trying to do that. Either it is topics on ‘Ram Sethu’ or ‘Decline in Science’.

The last time I checked, we are on track to sending a spacecraft to the moon coming April.

You are mixing achievement in engineering and technology with scientific and rational temperament.

And if what you say is true, the reason is because of the overwhelming attraction of bright minds towards the IT sector compared to pure sciences.

;-)

Now how does that make it unscientific?

I am combating the exact mindset here. ‘What is scientific’, seems to escape most Indians. Just because mathematical formulae are used to explain astrology, it does not make it Science. It’s not about knowing the formula, its about the methodology. Cite some research done in Ayurveda and may be we can classify it as science. Where does one start, and how does one dispute it, where does one record their observation and what are the predictions. Which medicine acts against which agent? What is the observed phenomenon? Is it just a rule book or a developing and evolving science?

Just because Alchemy studied properties of chemicals does not make it Science. And just because Ayurveda studied properties of plants does not make it Science.

Coming to F=ma, if you want to explain it in terms of common observation, I don't think it is differently taught in India as opposed to elsewhere. Regarding gravitation, virtually all school texts start with the story of how an apple fell in front of Newton.

We are not talking the same language here. I seem to fail on conveying this.

I am stressing on a teaching based on reasoning and deductive argument as a classroom exercise. I was not talking about text books.

I would expect American kids to know about ML King or the Boston Tea Party than Indians. How many American kids would know anything about the battle of Panipat or the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre?

I was not talking about the above events in particular. I was talking about ‘significance’ of such events. ;-) Again we are orthogonal to each other.

Moreover, I was just giving an example.

I vividly remember reading about the Holocaust in my 10th std history lessons, and it did have an impact on me. Can you please check out the CBSE textbooks before arriving at these conclusions?

Scientific knowledge has certain properties which are almost never presented to students in India. Perhaps the most important is that scientific knowledge is tentative , those ideas which are found to correspond to observations are held to be tentatively true and when those ideas are not found to do so , they are abandoned. This is in stark opposition to the concept of absolute, gospel Truth. There is indeed no such thing in science. This also has something to with the notion of accepting that we do not understand a large set of observations, but we might do so in the future with better ideas and more precise observations. But if you already think that everything is known , there is no incentive to develop new ideas.

The second idea is that scientific knowledge is developed by fragile humans and indeed as they say , one scientist's glory is to bury the other in a non-personal way. This means that the knowledge does not flow from the authority of any individual. I like a particular story in this regard , where one of Einstein's papers was rejected during peer review(after he got the Nobel prize) for being incorrect; and this man was the most revered scientist of his time.

Most religious knowledge is based on completely different principles. The ideas of Ram , omnipotence , omniscience, benevolent interjector , flying horses are unsubstantiated by precise evidence. They are held as elements of faith and do not require corroboration with new evidence. They do provide great psychological support especially in a country where life can often be nasty , brutish and short. Science which would bring a culture of doubt might be too unsettling. Perhaps when we are richer..

I agree with him that we Indians learn things by rote. We need to have a better education system where things are taught by experiments and open discussions in class rooms. The present system does not allow this as the teachers don't have the time or the inclination to teach and inspire the students in a different way. They have to finish the portions before term.

This was the reason why I put my gaughter in a "real Montessori" in the initial years. But we have to go with the crowds and she is learning things by rote. we as parents try and make her understand the concept about everything that she learns.

The one thing that I have noticed as a welcome change is the pattern of question papers. The students have to really think and understand the subject before they can answer these papers.

I agree with Sujai that all relegions have their share of superstitions. But I also believe that superstition or no superstition every body is entitled to their own beliefs. When these beliefs become a menace to the society then we are in trouble. Whether people believe that science and religion are the two sides of a coin or not, dosen't matter as long as they are not destroying the society.

Regarding Ayurveda - I disagree with Sujai. Ayurveda is an ancient science of our country and it has scientific basis. I am an allopathic doctor and I have practiced medicine in developed countries as well. All the herbal extracts used in ayurveda have proven scientific basis and they are used only after assessing their efficacy and safety by rigorous clinical trials.There are lot of diseases which can be cured by Ayurveda rather than allopathy.

Last but not the least" Indians suck" The last comment posted is a pity. The person does not know anything about our culture and India. We are like any other race on the face of earth, with our Intelligence, poverty, pettiness, selfishness, lack of civic sense etc etc. In fact I was amazed at the amount of gossip people indulge in , in the so called developed countries. I am not blaming any other culture or society. What I am saying is " Vasudhaiva Kudumbakam". The whole world is one family.

Given that all the statements you make may be true, you fail to give alternatives. Secondly, you are generalizing a lot when you say children are taught to mug up F=ma without really understanding how or why. And given that Indians make their mark in every field that they choose globally, your comments lack a statistical backing.

My alternatives –I discussed some of them in various topics under ‘Science and Blind Belief’ listed on my blog. Also, I discussed the methods in “To Better India II: Primary Education”.

You write:Given that all the statements you make may be true, you fail to give alternatives. Secondly, you are generalizing a lot when you say children are taught to mug up F=ma without really understanding how or why.

That could be a generalization. May be, there is a no study done on evaluating scientific temperament in India done as yet. I wish there was study that could evaluate scientific temperament in each country. I am quite sure we will at the bottom along with some of the radical Islamic countries.

For now, look at this article from Meera Nanda. A study says that we are one of the most religious people on the earth (with 92% saying that religion is very important to them). The only country beating us was Senegal at 97%. Not only that, we also believe that one has to believe in God to be moral.

According to Meera Nanda:Not only do we think God is “very important,” we hold belief in God as an indicator of personal morality. As many as 66 per cent of us think that “it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values.” In other words, a majority of us believe that atheists cannot be moral. We are closer in this to our Islamic neighbors, with Pakistan at 88 per cent and Bangladesh at 90 per cent, than to the Chinese (17 per cent) and the Japanese (33 per cent).

You write:And given that Indians make their mark in every field that they choose globally, your comments lack a statistical backing.

Being successful in every field is no indicator that we have a scientific temperament.

Dear Commenters:Please identify yourself. At least use a pseudonym. Otherwise there will be too many *Anonymous*; making it confusing.

Do NOT write personal information or whereabouts about the author or other commenters. You are free to write about yourself. Please do not use abusive language. Do not indulge in personal attacks and insults.

Write comments which are relevant and make sense so that the debate remains healthy.